Inside The Mind Of Islam's False Prophet Muhammad

[Justice]

What a terrible argument. Is someone not a true Muslim because they only prayed 4 times yesterday? Is someone not a true Jew because they didn't sacrifice their finest bull? There is literally no such thing as a true Muslim/Christian/Jew because EVERY one of them sins in some way.

Murder isn't the same as missing a prayer. That's a ridiculous comparison.

[PearlHowardman]

"The peoples of Islam will always be closer to us (Nazis) than, for example, France."

ADOLF HITLER

[Deranged Rhino]

[OCinBuffalo]

That's a whole lot to cover. I've been waiting for a reply from you in the other thread and yet here you are demanding I answer your question.

 

Why was it important to the early stages of Islam. Simply because Islam had to grow. If you had people going around bad mouthing the religion it probably wouldn't have grown as fast as it did. The Quran says there's no compulsion in Islam. You must come at your own free will. Islam isn't supposed to be spread by the sword.

 

Did I say there will be no more bastards? No. I said there will be far less without pre-marital sex. Same with STDs.

 

And while I'm at it I'd like to touch on your other point that wasn't addressed to me. A murderer ain't a murderer until he kills somebody. Same concept with the terrorists. Murder is strictly forbidden in Islam. Once you kill somebody, especially innocent people, you're no longer a Muslim because you went against the teachings of Islam. "Killing one man is like killing all of humanity. Saving one life is like saving all of humanity"-The Holy Quran. These people might think they're Muslim, but they're not good Muslims. I'm not permitted to say who can and can not go to heaven, only God can judge, because you never know if someone will truly repent for his sins.

"Simply because Islam had to grow"? Says who? That, ladies and gentlemen, is the mentality. "Get out of the way, or die, because this has to grow". The apologists can begin their weeping now. And of course it's: "Simply"

 

Islam is not supposed to be "spread by the sword". IF that's true, then WTF was Muhammed doing with 9 "holy" swords?(and notice that this comes from a site whose stated purpose is to "educate the Ummah". All have names, and one of them is named "Cleaver of Vertebrae". So much for claiming that beheading "isn't Islamic".

 

Google the Battle of Vienna, and ask yourself a question: why is Islam the only religion whose founder required a battle flag? Then ask: why did the Muslim general there sacrifice his entire personal guard to get Mohammed's personal battle flag back after it was captured? What would the world be like today if he had failed? What if that flag was sitting in a Museum in Vienna?(Or, more likely, Warsaw, see: Polish Winged Hussars)

 

Don't blow by those last 2 questions too quickly. The way things turned out is either a great tragedy or a great blessing...or neutral. (But I hate that answer because it's no fun.)

 

Consider: would it's capture have led to endless jihads to reclaim it, millions of lives lost, and a far worse fate for the Muslim world than mere colonization later on? Europe was already on the rise, and many would argue that constant Muslim invasion was the key element in that rise. IF that flag stays in Vienna, after withstanding even more massive and consistent Muslim invasions to take it back, its quite likely Europe, in the 1600s, and certainly in the 1700s, would have annihilated all of Islam completely. Thus, flag saved == tragedy averted.

 

Then Consider: would it's capture have led to a wave of shock for the Muslim world. If they saw it as a call to give up their invasions? Would they have had their own Reformation, and therefore, their own, Renaissance and Enlightenment, rather than completely lose their lead in commerce and technology in only 50 years after the battle? Is it possible that Silicon Valley winds up in Damascus? Thus, flag saved == tragedy.

 

Or, is the best outcome that they got the flag back?

 

See when I hear the words "Islam is the Answer"? I agree, if the question is: "What religion caused the Arabs and Turks to piss away the 700-year head start the Romans and Greeks gave them?"

 

That's why #3 is probably the best answer, because? Full-Blown Islam, like Full-Blown Mormonism, or Gangsta Rap, are all civilization and culture-killers. Humans who follow any to their full extent? They end up dead and/or poor and/or ignorant. Doubt me? Take a look at the entire ME right now and what do mostly see? Dead. Poor. Ignorant. You see the same thing in West/South Chicago, and in rural Utah; except here we hand out food stamps to them, so it's less dead, and more poor and ignorant.

 

And that's the point: you can tell me ISIS aren't "good Muslims". Or, I can tell you they are "full blown Muslims", meaning they follow the Quran far too literally, in everything.

 

But, what we can't tell each other is: they AREN'T Muslims.

 

Going back to the STDs argument. I guarantee there are far less cases of STDs in Islamic countries as opposed to anywhere else. I don't even have to look it up and I'd still be willing to bet on it. Children out of wedlock too.

Well, that's a snapshot statistic, so yeah, there's no point in looking it up, as point-in-time data is usually worthless, unless we are making "today" or "this hour" or "this minute" decisions.

 

Are you aware of what Thailand did to all its people who contracted AIDs? Wanna bet on what Iran does compared to what the US does? How about Saudi Arabia? Male gay sex is the #1 cause of the spread aids. What happens to gay men in Saudi Arabia? Injections are #2. What happens to Heroin addicts in Syria?

 

Speaking of bastards: I was treated to smuggled and uncensored footage of a beheading for the man/gunshot execution for the woman, for adultery, in my 8th grade advanced social studies class. I'll never forget the piece of her brain/skull that splashed back on the shooter, how pissed off he was, and my uncontrollable giggling at him, because "she got him too" in the end. Why our student teacher, who was a Jordanian, btw, thought it was a good idea to show that to 8th graders? I'll never know(I do have a wild guess). I will see those images forever. I wonder if that coward ever forgot the piece of brain that got him?

 

So uh, yeah, I guess that there's one way to handle a pregnancy out of wedlock, and then, there's another. Hell, we'd have no need for all this abortion commotion if we just killed every unwed mother. (This is why I can't take the "War on Women" seriously). I bet that would affect our #s...just a little.

 

You want to measure STDs and unwed pregnancy as if every nation on earth has the same policy, and think we can actually create statistics out of this raw data?

 

Here's my bet: You can't, because: what exactly is your methodology for weighting "bullet to side of head at close range"?

Edited April 14, 2015 by OCinBuffalo

[boyst]

I feel stupid reading this thread. Now I am unsure if that is because I read the thread and it is a result or that I cannot make sense of this thread. It is highly entertaining, so good job PPP'ers.

[Justice]

"Simply because Islam had to grow"? Says who? That, ladies and gentlemen, is the mentality. "Get out of the way, or die, because this has to grow". The apologists can begin their weeping now. And of course it's: "Simply"

 

Islam is not supposed to be "spread by the sword". IF that's true, then WTF was Muhammed doing with 9 "holy" swords?(and notice that this comes from a site whose stated purpose is to "educate the Ummah". All have names, and one of them is named "Cleaver of Vertebrae". So much for claiming that beheading "isn't Islamic".

 

Google the Battle of Vienna, and ask yourself a question: why is Islam the only religion whose founder required a battle flag? Then ask: why did the Muslim general there sacrifice his entire personal guard to get Mohammed's personal battle flag back after it was captured? What would the world be like today if he had failed? What if that flag was sitting in a Museum in Vienna?(Or, more likely, Warsaw, see: Polish Winged Hussars)

 

Don't blow by those last 2 questions too quickly. The way things turned out is either a great tragedy or a great blessing...or neutral. (But I hate that answer because it's no fun.)

 

Consider: would it's capture have led to endless jihads to reclaim it, millions of lives lost, and a far worse fate for the Muslim world than mere colonization later on? Europe was already on the rise, and many would argue that constant Muslim invasion was the key element in that rise. IF that flag stays in Vienna, after withstanding even more massive and consistent Muslim invasions to take it back, its quite likely Europe, in the 1600s, and certainly in the 1700s, would have annihilated all of Islam completely. Thus, flag saved == tragedy averted.

 

Then Consider: would it's capture have led to a wave of shock for the Muslim world. If they saw it as a call to give up their invasions? Would they have had their own Reformation, and therefore, their own, Renaissance and Enlightenment, rather than completely lose their lead in commerce and technology in only 50 years after the battle? Is it possible that Silicon Valley winds up in Damascus? Thus, flag saved == tragedy.

 

Or, is the best outcome that they got the flag back?

 

The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was a warrior. He needed to be one. Just look at what supposedly happened to the prophet (Jesus PBUH) before him. They tried to kill him. Muhammad (PBUH) wasn't destined to share the same fate.

 

See when I hear the words "Islam is the Answer"? I agree, if the question is: "What religion caused the Arabs and Turks to piss away the 700-year head start the Romans and Greeks gave them?"

 

What? The alphabet as you know them today aren't good enough for you?

 

That's why #3 is probably the best answer, because? Full-Blown Islam, like Full-Blown Mormonism, or Gangsta Rap, are all civilization and culture-killers. Humans who follow any to their full extent? They end up dead and/or poor and/or ignorant. Doubt me? Take a look at the entire ME right now and what do mostly see? Dead. Poor. Ignorant. You see the same thing in West/South Chicago, and in rural Utah; except here we hand out food stamps to them, so it's less dead, and more poor and ignorant.

 

And that's the point: you can tell me ISIS aren't "good Muslims". Or, I can tell you they are "full blown Muslims", meaning they follow the Quran far too literally, in everything.

 

But, what we can't tell each other is: they AREN'T Muslims.

 

I asked you to produce Suras that condone terrorism. You didn't. But here's an interesting piece of info for you, we Muslims have rules in war, such as:

 

 

"Permission to fight is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged… Those who have been driven out from their homes unjustly only because they said, ‘Our Lord is God’ — And if God did not repel some men by means of others, there would surely have been pulled down temples and churches and synagogues and mosques… (22:40-41).

Thus, the permission — not commandment — to fight is defensive. And that fighting protects temples, churches, synagogues, and mosques — which is to say, universal religious freedom.

While critics and extremist groups both love to cite Quranic excerpts like “kill them where ye find them,” they ignore that such verses clearly refer to treatment of those who would violently persecute Christians, Jews, or any person because of his faith. Indeed, Muhammad commanded the following uncompromising rules of war:

O people! I charge you with ten rules; learn them well… for your guidance in the battlefield! Do not commit treachery, or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy’s flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone.

Thus, Muhammad’s rules of war permit defensive fighting against active combatants while forbidding harm to anyone or anything else — human, animal, or property. Contrast this with Hamas rocket attacks and PIJ terrorist attacks — the distinction is clear. Likewise, as Gaza’s death count rises, Israel also has blood on its hands. According to Muhammad’s rules of war, no justification exists for either side to attack civilians, property, animals, or anyone who is not an active combatant.

And even against combatants, Muhammad put Muslims on notice. Once, Usama bin Zaid overcame an enemy soldier in hand-to-hand combat. The soldier implored Usama for amnesty just as Usama prepared to deliver the deathblow. Usama heard but ignored the plea and killed him anyway. Learning of this, Muhammad vociferously condemned Usama’s act as repulsive to Islamic rules of war.

Mind you, this combatant persecuted Muslims, helped exile them from Mecca, pursued them to murder them, and even then Muhammad required Usama to accept his amnesty plea — knowing full well the plea could be a lie.

Muhammad assumed this risk because he refused to forsake any opportunity for peace. After Muhammad, the Khalifa Umar, and centuries later, the legendary Muslim General Salahuddin, again demonstrated these principles. Both insisted Jews return to Jerusalem — as equals — whereas they suffered immense persecution under Christian rule.

Even ardent critics of Islam such as Sir William Muir admit that Muslims treated POWs with immense dignity. Captives were well fed and ransoms were according to their means. Indigent captives, meanwhile, “were allotted ten boys to be taught the art of writing” as a ransom.

A ransom of education — an example Hamas and PIJ have forgotten, and one Israel doesn’t know.

History demonstrates that Muhammad’s rules of war — when applied with justice — lead to peace. If applied today, Muhammad’s rules can end not only collateral damage, but war itself.

This article originally appeared in The Daily Beast. and the Huffington Post

US Muslim Fatwa on Terrorism

"The Fiqh Council of North America wishes to reaffirm Islam's absolute condemnation of terrorism and religious extremism." ... Read More

"

 

 

Well, that's a snapshot statistic, so yeah, there's no point in looking it up, as point-in-time data is usually worthless, unless we are making "today" or "this hour" or "this minute" decisions.

 

Are you aware of what Thailand did to all its people who contracted AIDs? Wanna bet on what Iran does compared to what the US does? How about Saudi Arabia? Male gay sex is the #1 cause of the spread aids. What happens to gay men in Saudi Arabia? Injections are #2. What happens to Heroin addicts in Syria?

 

Speaking of bastards: I was treated to smuggled and uncensored footage of a beheading for the man/gunshot execution for the woman, for adultery, in my 8th grade advanced social studies class. I'll never forget the piece of her brain/skull that splashed back on the shooter, how pissed off he was, and my uncontrollable giggling at him, because "she got him too" in the end. Why our student teacher, who was a Jordanian, btw, thought it was a good idea to show that to 8th graders? I'll never know(I do have a wild guess). I will see those images forever. I wonder if that coward ever forgot the piece of brain that got him?

 

So uh, yeah, I guess that there's one way to handle a pregnancy out of wedlock, and then, there's another. Hell, we'd have no need for all this abortion commotion if we just killed every unwed mother. (This is why I can't take the "War on Women" seriously). I bet that would affect our #s...just a little.

 

You want to measure STDs and unwed pregnancy as if every nation on earth has the same policy, and think we can actually create statistics out of this raw data?

 

Here's my bet: You can't, because: what exactly is your methodology for weighting "bullet to side of head at close range"?

 

You sure are hard-headed. So, abstaining from pre-marital sex wouldn't lower these numers at all? Really?

 

 

My kind of rap:

 

https://youtu.be/22l1sf5JZD0

 

Listen carefully to his words.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Justice

[meazza]

 

"Simply because Islam had to grow"? Says who? That, ladies and gentlemen, is the mentality. "Get out of the way, or die, because this has to grow". The apologists can begin their weeping now. And of course it's: "Simply"

 

Islam is not supposed to be "spread by the sword". IF that's true, then WTF was Muhammed doing with 9 "holy" swords?(and notice that this comes from a site whose stated purpose is to "educate the Ummah". All have names, and one of them is named "Cleaver of Vertebrae". So much for claiming that beheading "isn't Islamic".

 

Google the Battle of Vienna, and ask yourself a question: why is Islam the only religion whose founder required a battle flag? Then ask: why did the Muslim general there sacrifice his entire personal guard to get Mohammed's personal battle flag back after it was captured? What would the world be like today if he had failed? What if that flag was sitting in a Museum in Vienna?(Or, more likely, Warsaw, see: Polish Winged Hussars)

 

Don't blow by those last 2 questions too quickly. The way things turned out is either a great tragedy or a great blessing...or neutral. (But I hate that answer because it's no fun.)

 

Consider: would it's capture have led to endless jihads to reclaim it, millions of lives lost, and a far worse fate for the Muslim world than mere colonization later on? Europe was already on the rise, and many would argue that constant Muslim invasion was the key element in that rise. IF that flag stays in Vienna, after withstanding even more massive and consistent Muslim invasions to take it back, its quite likely Europe, in the 1600s, and certainly in the 1700s, would have annihilated all of Islam completely. Thus, flag saved == tragedy averted.

 

Then Consider: would it's capture have led to a wave of shock for the Muslim world. If they saw it as a call to give up their invasions? Would they have had their own Reformation, and therefore, their own, Renaissance and Enlightenment, rather than completely lose their lead in commerce and technology in only 50 years after the battle? Is it possible that Silicon Valley winds up in Damascus? Thus, flag saved == tragedy.

 

Or, is the best outcome that they got the flag back?

 

The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was a warrior. He needed to be one. Just look at what supposedly happened to the prophet (Jesus PBUH) before him. They tried to kill him. Muhammad (PBUH) wasn't destined to share the same fate.

 

See when I hear the words "Islam is the Answer"? I agree, if the question is: "What religion caused the Arabs and Turks to piss away the 700-year head start the Romans and Greeks gave them?"

 

What? The alphabet as you know them today aren't good enough for you?

 

That's why #3 is probably the best answer, because? Full-Blown Islam, like Full-Blown Mormonism, or Gangsta Rap, are all civilization and culture-killers. Humans who follow any to their full extent? They end up dead and/or poor and/or ignorant. Doubt me? Take a look at the entire ME right now and what do mostly see? Dead. Poor. Ignorant. You see the same thing in West/South Chicago, and in rural Utah; except here we hand out food stamps to them, so it's less dead, and more poor and ignorant.

 

And that's the point: you can tell me ISIS aren't "good Muslims". Or, I can tell you they are "full blown Muslims", meaning they follow the Quran far too literally, in everything.

 

But, what we can't tell each other is: they AREN'T Muslims.

 

I asked you to produce Suras that condone terrorism. You didn't. But here's an interesting piece of info for you, we Muslims have rules in war, such as:

 

 

"Permission to fight is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged… Those who have been driven out from their homes unjustly only because they said, ‘Our Lord is God’ — And if God did not repel some men by means of others, there would surely have been pulled down temples and churches and synagogues and mosques… (22:40-41).

Thus, the permission — not commandment — to fight is defensive. And that fighting protects temples, churches, synagogues, and mosques — which is to say, universal religious freedom.

While critics and extremist groups both love to cite Quranic excerpts like “kill them where ye find them,” they ignore that such verses clearly refer to treatment of those who would violently persecute Christians, Jews, or any person because of his faith. Indeed, Muhammad commanded the following uncompromising rules of war:

O people! I charge you with ten rules; learn them well… for your guidance in the battlefield! Do not commit treachery, or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy’s flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone.

Thus, Muhammad’s rules of war permit defensive fighting against active combatants while forbidding harm to anyone or anything else — human, animal, or property. Contrast this with Hamas rocket attacks and PIJ terrorist attacks — the distinction is clear. Likewise, as Gaza’s death count rises, Israel also has blood on its hands. According to Muhammad’s rules of war, no justification exists for either side to attack civilians, property, animals, or anyone who is not an active combatant.

And even against combatants, Muhammad put Muslims on notice. Once, Usama bin Zaid overcame an enemy soldier in hand-to-hand combat. The soldier implored Usama for amnesty just as Usama prepared to deliver the deathblow. Usama heard but ignored the plea and killed him anyway. Learning of this, Muhammad vociferously condemned Usama’s act as repulsive to Islamic rules of war.

Mind you, this combatant persecuted Muslims, helped exile them from Mecca, pursued them to murder them, and even then Muhammad required Usama to accept his amnesty plea — knowing full well the plea could be a lie.

Muhammad assumed this risk because he refused to forsake any opportunity for peace. After Muhammad, the Khalifa Umar, and centuries later, the legendary Muslim General Salahuddin, again demonstrated these principles. Both insisted Jews return to Jerusalem — as equals — whereas they suffered immense persecution under Christian rule.

Even ardent critics of Islam such as Sir William Muir admit that Muslims treated POWs with immense dignity. Captives were well fed and ransoms were according to their means. Indigent captives, meanwhile, “were allotted ten boys to be taught the art of writing” as a ransom.

A ransom of education — an example Hamas and PIJ have forgotten, and one Israel doesn’t know.

History demonstrates that Muhammad’s rules of war — when applied with justice — lead to peace. If applied today, Muhammad’s rules can end not only collateral damage, but war itself.

This article originally appeared in The Daily Beast. and the Huffington Post

US Muslim Fatwa on Terrorism

"The Fiqh Council of North America wishes to reaffirm Islam's absolute condemnation of terrorism and religious extremism." ... Read More

"

 

 

Well, that's a snapshot statistic, so yeah, there's no point in looking it up, as point-in-time data is usually worthless, unless we are making "today" or "this hour" or "this minute" decisions.

 

Are you aware of what Thailand did to all its people who contracted AIDs? Wanna bet on what Iran does compared to what the US does? How about Saudi Arabia? Male gay sex is the #1 cause of the spread aids. What happens to gay men in Saudi Arabia? Injections are #2. What happens to Heroin addicts in Syria?

 

Speaking of bastards: I was treated to smuggled and uncensored footage of a beheading for the man/gunshot execution for the woman, for adultery, in my 8th grade advanced social studies class. I'll never forget the piece of her brain/skull that splashed back on the shooter, how pissed off he was, and my uncontrollable giggling at him, because "she got him too" in the end. Why our student teacher, who was a Jordanian, btw, thought it was a good idea to show that to 8th graders? I'll never know(I do have a wild guess). I will see those images forever. I wonder if that coward ever forgot the piece of brain that got him?

 

So uh, yeah, I guess that there's one way to handle a pregnancy out of wedlock, and then, there's another. Hell, we'd have no need for all this abortion commotion if we just killed every unwed mother. (This is why I can't take the "War on Women" seriously). I bet that would affect our #s...just a little.

 

You want to measure STDs and unwed pregnancy as if every nation on earth has the same policy, and think we can actually create statistics out of this raw data?

 

Here's my bet: You can't, because: what exactly is your methodology for weighting "bullet to side of head at close range"?

 

You sure are hard-headed. So, abstaining from pre-marital sex wouldn't lower these numers at all? Really?

 

 

My kind of rap:

 

https://youtu.be/22l1sf5JZD0

 

Listen carefully to his words.

 

 

You actually read all that?

[DC Tom]

 

You actually read all that?

 

I think he's the only one who does.

[Justice]

 

You actually read all that?

Lol. Yes.

 

How else can I find gems like "do they teach calculus in madrassas? Lmao!!! He thinks they learn hate and warfare in all the madrassas. That's some amusing stuff right there.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Justice

[4merper4mer]

Lol. Yes.

 

How else can I find gems like "do they teach calculus in madrassas? Lmao!!! He thinks they learn hate and warfare in all the madrassas. That's some amusing stuff right there.

 

 

To be fair, he does not just think madrassas and their participants are stupid; he also thinks every other person walking the face of the planet is stupid.....except one.....and he has software that can prove it.

[DC Tom]

 

 

To be fair, he does not just think madrassas and their participants are stupid; he also thinks every other person walking the face of the planet is stupid.....except one.....and he has software that can prove it.

 

And he can write a six-page report on it, too.

 

Eight if he's allowed to use emoticons.

[4merper4mer]

 

And he can write a six-page report on it, too.

 

Eight if he's allowed to use emoticons.

 

Edit: Plus he thinks he is funny. IMO if brevity is the sole of wit then that dude is walking around barefoot.

Edited April 15, 2015 by 4merper4mer

[meazza]

Lol. Yes.

 

How else can I find gems like "do they teach calculus in madrassas? Lmao!!! He thinks they learn hate and warfare in all the madrassas. That's some amusing stuff right there.

 

Even when I try I zone out about 25% of the way.

 

He even started a thread about me and I was too lazy to read it.

[Justice]

 

Even when I try I zone out about 25% of the way.

 

He even started a thread about me and I was too lazy to read it.

That's bad! Lol

[3rdnlng]

 

You actually read all that?

To be fair, Justice's embedded responses doubled the size of OC's post. We all know that OC has the unique ability of creating a paragraph out of a short sentence. He also should be eligible for some sort of disability for the shoulder injury he must have for the repeated patting of his own back. Hear what he has to say though (if you have the time). He usually makes a lot of sense, even though he takes the long way around. Think of him as PPP's Sean Hannity, one who finds a gozillian ways of saying the same correct thing, and then repeats it..

[4merper4mer]

To be fair, Justice's embedded responses doubled the size of OC's post. We all know that OC has the unique ability of creating a paragraph out of a short sentence. He also should be eligible for some sort of disability for the shoulder injury he must have for the repeated patting of his own back. Hear what he has to say though (if you have the time). He usually makes a lot of sense, even though he takes the long way around. Think of him as PPP's Sean Hannity, one who finds a gozillian ways of saying the same correct thing, and then repeats it..

 

 

I heard Sean Hannity call himself a dolt once. That was correct. He seems like he'd be a nice guy in person. Other than that everything is a rant. He has no idea if it is correct, partially correct or false. It seems pretty random.

[Justice]

To be fair, Justice's embedded responses doubled the size of OC's post. We all know that OC has the unique ability of creating a paragraph out of a short sentence. He also should be eligible for some sort of disability for the shoulder injury he must have for the repeated patting of his own back. Hear what he has to say though (if you have the time). He usually makes a lot of sense, even though he takes the long way around. Think of him as PPP's Sean Hannity, one who finds a gozillian ways of saying the same correct thing, and then repeats it..

Same correct thing? He wasn't correct. I proved him wrong. He thinks a madrassa is a place where terrorists train, when in actuality it's just the Arabic word for school. Of course there are some madrassas that are extremist but no where near all of them. He also said Muslims should make a fatwah condemning terrorism--they did. He refuses to acknowledge if you abstain from pre-marital sex it won't help decrease children out of wedlock and STDs. He was also wrong about the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), my quote on the rules of war proved that, but yeah, he's "correct". Whatever, bro.

[3rdnlng]

Same correct thing? He wasn't correct. I proved him wrong. He thinks a madrassa is a place where terrorists train, when in actuality it's just the Arabic word for school. Of course there are some madrassas that are extremist but no where near all of them. He also said Muslims should make a fatwah condemning terrorism--they did. He refuses to acknowledge if you abstain from pre-marital sex it won't help decrease children out of wedlock and STDs. He was also wrong about the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), my quote on the rules of war proved that, but yeah, he's "correct". Whatever, bro.

This thread is about the "False Prophet Muhammad". I don't understand the continued mention of STD's and premarital sex. Is the Muslim practice of genital mutilation an effort to prevent premarital sex? How come men/boys don't get the same treatment? BTW,generally speaking, who attends a madrassa? Is it the mutilated ones, or just the sex with all their junk left? So let's use OC's figures (they must be correct because he quoted them from somewhere, right?) and say that there are 1.6 billion Muslims in this world. Right off the top let's cut that figure in half and eliminate the mutilated ones and use the figure of 800,000,000. I'm sure that not all of the 800 million attended a madrassa so let's cut that figure in half again. Now that it is firmly established that at least 400 million Muslims have, do or will attend a madrassa we should determine how many of them teach extremism. You stated that "nowhere near all of them" are extremist. That sounds as if even you think that the majority of them are extreme. Giving you the benefit of the doubt I'm going to cut that figure in half. So, we are now at the figure of 200 million non mutilated Muslims that have, are or will be taught extremism in a madrassa. How many of them will take up arms, wear a homicide belt or lop off a few infidels heads? OC thinks that only 8% will, thus the 16 million figure he came up with. (I spelled that out for any people reading this that may have attended a madrassa that didn't focus on subjects like math) I on the other hand, value consistency. I'm going to cut that figure in half and then in half again just to show you how reasonable I can be. So we are now at the figure of 50 million Muslims who really aren't Muslims that are non mutilated and were trained in the same schools as 100's of million other non mutilated Muslims that are going to act outside of the Muslim faith and rape, burn and chop off heads of non Muslims.

 

Any of you who thought OC was wrong are actually right. He downplayed the issue and should be pilloried for his verboseness and narcissism. Sixteen million non mutilated Muslims who are really not Muslims but pray facing Mecca five times a day and have been schooled in a madrassa and want to kill torture and dismember infidels? We all know now that there must be at least 3 times that amount. How could OC be so wrong?

[Justice]

This thread is about the "False Prophet Muhammad". I don't understand the continued mention of STD's and premarital sex. Is the Muslim practice of genital mutilation an effort to prevent premarital sex? How come men/boys don't get the same treatment? BTW,generally speaking, who attends a madrassa? Is it the mutilated ones, or just the sex with all their junk left? So let's use OC's figures (they must be correct because he quoted them from somewhere, right?) and say that there are 1.6 billion Muslims in this world. Right off the top let's cut that figure in half and eliminate the mutilated ones and use the figure of 800,000,000. I'm sure that not all of the 800 million attended a madrassa so let's cut that figure in half again. Now that it is firmly established that at least 400 million Muslims have, do or will attend a madrassa we should determine how many of them teach extremism. You stated that "nowhere near all of them" are extremist. That sounds as if even you think that the majority of them are extreme. Giving you the benefit of the doubt I'm going to cut that figure in half. So, we are now at the figure of 200 million non mutilated Muslims that have, are or will be taught extremism in a madrassa. How many of them will take up arms, wear a homicide belt or lop off a few infidels heads? OC thinks that only 8% will, thus the 16 million figure he came up with. (I spelled that out for any people reading this that may have attended a madrassa that didn't focus on subjects like math) I on the other hand, value consistency. I'm going to cut that figure in half and then in half again just to show you how reasonable I can be. So we are now at the figure of 50 million Muslims who really aren't Muslims that are non mutilated and were trained in the same schools as 100's of million other non mutilated Muslims that are going to act outside of the Muslim faith and rape, burn and chop off heads of non Muslims.

 

Any of you who thought OC was wrong are actually right. He downplayed the issue and should be pilloried for his verboseness and narcissism. Sixteen million non mutilated Muslims who are really not Muslims but pray facing Mecca five times a day and have been schooled in a madrassa and want to kill torture and dismember infidels? We all know now that there must be at least 3 times that amount. How could OC be so wrong?

I wish I never read this. What a waste of time.

[DC Tom]

I wish I never read this. What a waste of time.

 

I wish you'd never quoted it. I hate to know that even exists.

 

There's a reason I blocked those racist !@#$s.